The smoke on Capitol Hill these days is probably
generated by the annual battle over foreign aid. I jokingly told a Southern
congressman last week that there was a move afoot to expel his state from
the Union and he replied: "Splendid, maybe then we could qualify for foreign
aid!" Foreign aid recipients don't vote in congressional elections and
there is little enthusiasm for the program except as a possible contribution
to national security.

President Kennedy is asking for $4½ billion
during the next 12 months to shore up the military and economic position
of our allies and "underdeveloped" countries This is about the same level
budgeted by Mr. Eisenhower.

About $1.8 billion would supply arms and other
MILITARY needs for these nations, and $2.7 billion is slated for roads,
power plants, dams, schools, water systems and for sending American food,
teachers and technicians to aid in raising the economic level of these
nations.

America's foreign aid program has wide support
from leaders of both political parties. It is backed by such diverse groups
as the National Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO. The recent encyclical
of Pope John XXIII supports such aid as do statements by leaders of other
faiths. Our military chiefs say foreign aid will help the Defense Department
in its task.

With such broad support, why the row in Congress?

A small but vociferous minority opposes ANY
foreign aid. Others are opposed to specific aspects of the program. This
year their opposition is concentrated on "back door spending," the label
applied to the new long-range planning approach to the foreign aid program.

The State Department contends that much of
the waste and inefficiency of past foreign aid efforts stems from a lack
of such planning. Under year-to-year planning nobody can be sure whether
or not a dam started this year would be finished five years hence, or never.

In its campaign for five-year planning the
administration is supported by former Vice President Nixon and other Republican
leaders as well as by groups intimately acquainted with business efficiency
-- such as the Chamber of Commerce. But they don't all support
the administration's
financing plan.

The President asks to finance the long-range
plan by authority to borrow from the U.S. Treasury up to $900 million this
year and up to $1.6 billion in each of

2

the next four years. This money would be used
for dams and other long-term development projects. Funds would be LOANED,
not given, to countries and repaid in U.S. dollars.

Actually, this kind of financing is not new.
The first such authority was requested by President Hoover when he established
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Borrowing authority is presently
used by more than 20 federal agencies including the Small Business Administration,
Housing and Home Finance Administration, REA, and Veterans Direct Loan
Program. Under either method of financing (direct appropriation or borrowing
authority) Congress must authorize the spending of the money.

President Eisenhower asked for the same long-range
financing principle in 1957 amd 30 Republican senators including Mr. Dirksen,
now GOP minority leader, backed him. Senator
Morton, former GOP national
chairman still favors this principle and chides his Republican colleagues
for reversing themselves.

WASTE IN FOREIGN AID

I've just finished reading "A Nation of Sheep"
by William Lederer, co-author of "The Ugly American". Mr. Lederer, along
with a host of other observers, paints a vivid picture of mismanagement
in our foreign aid program. Somehow, this nation of tremendous managerial
genius has failed to produce an effective system for dispensing overseas
aid. Maybe we can find the needed talent, but I am deeply concerned.

Unless we can solve this management problem
in the near future I will seriously consider voting to end or drastically
curtail this expensive program.

After an agonizing study I've reached this
position in my thinking:

1. I'm dubious about the effectiveness
of foreign aid.

2. But, leaders of both parties, heads of
many responsible organizations, our military leaders, our President and
two ex-Presidents, say we need to spend this money if we are to hold back
and defeat the Communists.

3. If they are wrong and $4½ billion is wasted
we are out some money.

4. If they are right, AND WE DON'T APPROPRIATE
THE MONEY, we may not have the allies or the strength to win if war comes.

This year we'll spend nearly $50 billion
for national defense. The foreign aid program is another 10 per cent for
national security "insurance."